Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(7)
Message 204 of 313 (751583)
03-04-2015 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
03-04-2015 7:48 AM


It is mind boggling to see people who practice the act of sodomy elevated to the status of an oppressed minority supposedly denied the "right" to marriage that obviously makes sense only for heterosexuals, which was universally recognized by all cultures throughout history
There are a few things to say in relation to this.
First of all, sodomy is practiced by a very great number of heterosexual couples too, both married and unmarried. A quick look on Google reveals a survey which demonstrated that 30% of the women surveyed in the States had engaged in it at least once. If you're going to annul their marriages too, you're gonna lose a lot of your audience.
Secondly, you have yet to demonstrate how it is "obvious" that marriage makes sense only for heterosexual couples. If you try to make the case that marriage is to provide a stable family environment, then you have to start annulling the marriages of childless couples, as well as ignoring the evidence of stable, loving environments for adopted children with gay adoptive parents. If you argue that marriage is about society recognising a loving emotional and financial commitment for life for a couple, then it's impossible for that not to apply to gay couples. And if you argue that it's somehow unnatural or not normal, you are faced with the inarguable position that for gay people, their relationship is entirely natural and normal for them. There is no "obvious" to any of your position.
And thirdly, as has been pointed out before, many societies have recognised - even encouraged - homosexual relationships. The cradles of Western civilization, Greece and Rome, are both examples of this. And a large part of the reason that that recognition was not in the context of their concept of marriage, was that that concept was very much to do with the subjugation of women's personal and property rights to men. We've improved that a lot since then, and marriage is now an invaluable context in which our modern societies can recognise loving homosexual relationships.
People being gay does you no harm. It does no one any harm. Do the decent, loving, generous thing for your fellow men and women, and let them marry. They love each other, for heaven's sake !

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 7:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2015 9:21 AM vimesey has not replied
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:28 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 228 of 313 (751645)
03-04-2015 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:28 AM


Oh excuuuuuse ME. I forget how addicted to sophistic nonsense you all are here. Of course what I MEANT was SODOMITES, HOMOSEXJUALS, those whose sexual MODE is sodomy.
Ok, I'm not gonna push the point - but if you are going to maintain that you have nothing personal against homosexual people, then you should be aware that many people will see "sodomites" as a somewhat pejorative term.
It's about the simple objective fact that heterosexuals are DESIGNED for each other and that together they have the physical capacity to produce babies. Oh and please spare me all the sophistry about the exceptions, the infertilities and so on, they don't affect the basic fact of the design for fit that is the apparatus of reproduction.
There's no doubt that the sexual organs have evolved (you'd say they've been designed, but we'll agree to differ on that, for fear of going off topic), to fit into each other, and enable reproduction. Where we differ is that you think that is sufficient to support your prejudice - whereas I say "Yes - but so what ?"
You see, to go from evolutionary fit, to moral judgment, you need a connecting logical argument. I believe you don't have one. Hence you sticking with "but it's not what they were designed for." That's not an argument - it's a restatement of a fact, which is irrelevant to marriage (unless you can provide a logical connection between the two).
it's about SOCIAL RULES AND STANDARDS, it's about the MEANING OF THINGS, it's about the social consciousness of SIMPLE REALITY, those are what are hurt by marrying people who are not designed to fit together.
No. Abstract concepts cannot be hurt. They can be changed, however, so that they stop hurting people by discriminating against them.
P.S. And by the way, those "cradles of civilization" both imploded and no longer exist, right? Even secular historians have blamed that on their sexual perversities among other corruptions.
There were a few Victorian historians who ran that line - they were to some extent a product of the prejudices of their time. But I would be utterly fascinated to see you provide a reasoned argument, as to why an acceptance of homosexual relationships led to the downfall of Greece or Rome. (Not just a coincidence of the two states of affairs - a reasoned argument as to cause and effect).
Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 6:20 PM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(2)
Message 245 of 313 (751703)
03-05-2015 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Faith
03-04-2015 6:20 PM


Mind rape is the social consequence that probably bothers me most, as in the substitution of a fantasy about marriage and sex and family, in place of reality. Big fat pretense. Charade. Emperor's new clothes, officially enforced. Or RAZD's favorite concept which he always misuses: Cognitive Dissonance, enforced by authority. One bit of that being using words in a twisted way: "wife" can now be a man, or it can be a woman "married to" another woman, as "husband" can now be a woman, or a man married to a man. I worry about what such nonsense does to children's minds, and to public consciousness in general. Recipe for confusion, cynicism, and REAL cognitive dissonance that unstrings the mental processes. Apparently you don't worry about any of this. You're all caught up in this bogus idea of fairness and equality.
Mind rape is one hell of a loaded term. In searching for equality of sexuality, we are challenging entrenched attitudes, and looking to change them, yes. Just as we have (with some degree of success) done with other searches for equality - racial, women's, religious, disabled. Call it mind rape if you will (though frankly, it's so extreme and exaggerated, that you actually damage your case by using it), but it is the simple challenging of entrenched prejudice.
I think the physiological "fit" is sufficient to define who's fit for marriage and who isn't but apparently you don't and that just makes continued discussion along those lines futile.
Yes, I'm aware that's what you think is a pre-qualifier to marriage, but what is your view as to what marriage is for ? Clearly not every heterosexual couple who have sex together will be married - so what function does marriage fulfill, to differentiate those couples who are married, from those who aren't ? (I know you'll have guessed my next question, and be aware of a sort of bear trap here, but the question's important and valid).

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 6:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:55 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 249 of 313 (751709)
03-05-2015 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
03-05-2015 12:55 AM


I think you've misunderstood me. What I was asking is what you think marriage is for, as between heterosexual couples.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 12:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:05 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 253 of 313 (751716)
03-05-2015 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:05 AM


Ok, that's what it does, but I'm after the why. Its purpose. What benefits it brings. (After all, we're perfectly capable, as a race, of forming permanent bonds and procreating without marriage).

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:35 AM vimesey has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 259 of 313 (751723)
03-05-2015 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
03-05-2015 1:35 AM


My iPad ran out of juice, about 3 seconds before I hit reply - grrr !
I'll sort out a proper reply when I'm home and can get off my mobi.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 1:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024